Clarification of badge location on ABUs

[8416w]

Reading the guidelines for badge and patch wear on the ABUs, It doesn't say what can be worn on the right sleeve.  I am assuming that nothing can be worn on the right sleeve. Also it appears that no big specialty patches can be worn above the right pocket only on the right pocket. Does anyone know if I am correct in my assumptions.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Reading the guidelines for badge and patch wear on the ABUs, It doesn't say what can be worn on the right sleeve.  I am assuming that nothing can be worn on the right sleeve. Also it appears that no big specialty patches can be worn above the right pocket only on the right pocket. Does anyone know if I am correct in my assumptions.

Yes on the sleeve, and yes, the pluto patch is dead as well.

[Damron]

Looks like the Ranger tab is dead as well, right?

[jeders]

Reading the guidelines for badge and patch wear on the ABUs, It doesn't say what can be worn on the right sleeve.  I am assuming that nothing can be worn on the right sleeve. Also it appears that no big specialty patches can be worn above the right pocket only on the right pocket. Does anyone know if I am correct in my assumptions.

Yes on the sleeve, and yes, the pluto patch is dead as well.

Not dead, just moved to the pocket as far as I can tell.

Looks like the Ranger tab is dead as well, right?

For the time being. But, considering the number of issues with the current guidance, I expect it to be revised to include ranger tabs, berets, and other items currently authorized on the BDU by the time the final guidance makes its way into 39-1.

[Spam]

My understanding from our briefing at the GAWG/SER conference recently was that the updates pending USAF concurrence are that any "Ranger" type tabs would be local (Wing) specific Supplemental topics, and that all Activity-specific headgear (such as blue berets, which are a huge USAF security force issue) will be allowed at the host activity only, to be removed and stored after the activity until next years activity.

V/R
Spam

[NCRblues]

(such as blue berets, which are a huge USAF security force issue)

V/R
Spam

BS flag on the play...

It is in no way a "SF issue" to have CAP members wearing a felt hat that happened to be close to the same shade as AF cops.

Let's just be honest about what this is and stop blaming the AF. This is CAP realizing that we don't truly need special headgear for NCSA attendees. Heck, I've been to NBB a lot, and I hate the beret, but it's not a Security Forces issue. My old AD squadron of just under 600 SF had no idea what CAP even was, I was the only member, let alone them caring about a fraction of a fraction of a percent of CAP members who happen to wear a beret in a field uniform.

[8416w]

Thank you for the response. My squadron has received it's supply of ABU's and I just wanted to be able to guide the cadet's in the right direction. Hopefully our new wing commander will be sending out info soon on whether the wing patch will be required for the left sleeve.

[Okayish Aviator]

(such as blue berets, which are a huge USAF security force issue)

V/R
Spam

BS flag on the play...

It is in no way a "SF issue" to have CAP members wearing a felt hat that happened to be close to the same shade as AF cops.

Let's just be honest about what this is and stop blaming the AF. This is CAP realizing that we don't truly need special headgear for NCSA attendees. Heck, I've been to NBB a lot, and I hate the beret, but it's not a Security Forces issue. My old AD squadron of just under 600 SF had no idea what CAP even was, I was the only member, let alone them caring about a fraction of a fraction of a percent of CAP members who happen to wear a beret in a field uniform.

And I'll add, I've been to NBB several times, and although I'd like the option to wear it, it's not really a big deal if I can't, or if we can't in general. The whole point of that activity (or any NCSA for that matter) is the mission and the work done there. It doesn't make you special. The quality of work you do while you're there is what makes you stand out. You carry that forward regardless of what hat you wear, and so either way it makes no difference. At least.... that's what I've come to feel about it after being *all about the beret* back when I was a wee cadet.

Id imagine we'll see additions to the uniform items allowed in any case, but far more toned down. I'm happy with it.

[audiododd]

I hope they clarify the wear instructions for the ABUs in regards to starch/iron. The Air Force doesn't allow starching. You can press it, but you can't press creases into it. I hope CAP comes up with something like that. I've seen BDUs so starched down they might as well be a dress uniform.

[Eclipse]

I hope they clarify the wear instructions for the ABUs in regards to starch/iron. The Air Force doesn't allow starching. You can press it, but you can't press creases into it. I hope CAP comes up with something like that. I've seen BDUs so starched down they might as well be a dress uniform.

Deity of choice forbid members actually look sharp.

Let's make sure that never happens again.

[Luis R. Ramos]

That feeling, of actually wanting to have starched field uniforms and spit-shined boots runs deep on some...

I have seen photos of US Army soldiers in 1939-1940s where they actually wore ties to the field.

Those guys want to impress...

With their work dress...

[audiododd]

I hope they clarify the wear instructions for the ABUs in regards to starch/iron. The Air Force doesn't allow starching. You can press it, but you can't press creases into it. I hope CAP comes up with something like that. I've seen BDUs so starched down they might as well be a dress uniform.

Deity of choice forbid members actually look sharp.

Let's make sure that never happens again.

You can look sharp without starching a crease that'll almost cut you into a UTILITY uniform.  Most of this was started by staff/office folks that were told they HAD to wear BDUs and they decided to starch them to make it as sharp as their blues.  Over time, it became an unwritten standard and those of us that were actually working in those uniforms would get looked down on (or deity forbid actually counseled) about our appearance.  I would press my BDUs everytime they came out of the wash (and sometimes in the middle of the week), but I wasn't going to starch a uniform I was going to take into the field.  It made no sense.  THAT'S why Big Blue decided to make the no starch rule (well...that and the fact that if you get hit by an infrared illuminator, you'll light up like a beacon under night vision gear).

I'm already starting to see it in the AD world.  There's a LT I see around base occasionally that has the collar and lapels of his ABUs sewn down.  IMHO, it just looks ridiculous on a utility uniform. You don't have to look like a duffel bag -- take pride in the uniform, but you don't have to make the pants stand up by themselves either.

[Holding Pattern]

I hope they clarify the wear instructions for the ABUs in regards to starch/iron. The Air Force doesn't allow starching. You can press it, but you can't press creases into it. I hope CAP comes up with something like that. I've seen BDUs so starched down they might as well be a dress uniform.

Deity of choice forbid members actually look sharp.

Let's make sure that never happens again.

You can look sharp without starching a crease that'll almost cut you into a UTILITY uniform.  Most of this was started by staff/office folks that were told they HAD to wear BDUs and they decided to starch them to make it as sharp as their blues.  Over time, it became an unwritten standard and those of us that were actually working in those uniforms would get looked down on (or deity forbid actually counseled) about our appearance.  I would press my BDUs everytime they came out of the wash (and sometimes in the middle of the week), but I wasn't going to starch a uniform I was going to take into the field.  It made no sense.  THAT'S why Big Blue decided to make the no starch rule (well...that and the fact that if you get hit by an infrared illuminator, you'll light up like a beacon under night vision gear).

I'm already starting to see it in the AD world.  There's a LT I see around base occasionally that has the collar and lapels of his ABUs sewn down.  IMHO, it just looks ridiculous on a utility uniform. You don't have to look like a duffel bag -- take pride in the uniform, but you don't have to make the pants stand up by themselves either.

As a bit of humor, I know someone who took their BDUs to the dry cleaner and asked for "pressed, no starch" and they missed the starch memo.

Those BDUs could have in fact cut bystanders.

[Spaceman3750]

I hope they clarify the wear instructions for the ABUs in regards to starch/iron. The Air Force doesn't allow starching. You can press it, but you can't press creases into it. I hope CAP comes up with something like that. I've seen BDUs so starched down they might as well be a dress uniform.

Deity of choice forbid members actually look sharp.

Let's make sure that never happens again.

I'll let my actions and my results tell the story of what kind of professional I am. If someone is so vein that they ignore results over whether or not boots have a mirror finish or a work uniform has creases, they're probably not the person whose opinions I care about. I think you said it best once  (and I'm paraphrasing here) - if you have confidence in your skills, then the opinions of others are irrelevant.

I try not to look like a sack of crap, but you won't see me ironing my bbdu's - I have better things to do.

[Eclipse]

You can look sharp without starching a crease that'll almost cut you into a UTILITY uniform.  Most of this was started by staff/office folks that were told they HAD to wear BDUs and they decided to starch them to make it as sharp as their blues.  Over time, it became an unwritten standard and those of us that were actually working in those uniforms would get looked down on (or deity forbid actually counseled) about our appearance.  I would press my BDUs everytime they came out of the wash (and sometimes in the middle of the week), but I wasn't going to starch a uniform I was going to take into the field.  It made no sense.  THAT'S why Big Blue decided to make the no starch rule (well...that and the fact that if you get hit by an infrared illuminator, you'll light up like a beacon under night vision gear).

I'm already starting to see it in the AD world.  There's a LT I see around base occasionally that has the collar and lapels of his ABUs sewn down.  IMHO, it just looks ridiculous on a utility uniform. You don't have to look like a duffel bag -- take pride in the uniform, but you don't have to make the pants stand up by themselves either.

What is missed in a CAP context is that for many members, especially cadets, the field uniform is the one they wear the most,
most likely to be largely ignored by mom and dad, left in a lump on the bedroom floor, and for many, many members never worn in any environment
outside a regular meeting or encampment.

Worn in a meeting-only context, a properly ironed set of BDUs can probably be worn 2-3 times per washing, ironing, cleaners, etc.
for most members that's possibly a month or two if dress uniforms and PT are accounted for?  Hardly the herculean of maintenance
which seems a Rubicon.

As to even bringing up the idea of IR luminescence in a CAP context, whether starch, laundry detergent, or mil-spec vs. other vendor,
that's totally irrelevant.

A shoe-shine kit is still required gear for GTMs, that's ridiculous, and shows how much CAP tries to emulate a military model
over common sense when copy/pasting curriculum.  No one expects someone to be starched and clean after a real day in a
real field in 85 weather plus FLWG humidity.

But there's nothing wrong with CAP members pressing ABUs, BDUs, or CFUs, especially in a public-facing environment,
or a situation like an encampment where you're being judged on appearance.

Field performance bravado and uniform appearance are not mutually exclusive, and those who
portend they are are usually showing other cards as well.

People notice.

[PHall]

ABU's do not need to be ironed and they really, really do not need to be starched.
If you follow the instructions on the care label on the blouse and trousers, i.e. Premament Press cycle and remove from dryer as soon as they're dry. They will look good.
They were made to not need ironing.

[SarDragon]

A well polished boot has advantages beyond looking pretty. Polishing improved the water resistance, and makes them easier to clean when they get dirty/muddy.

[kwe1009]

ABU's do not need to be ironed and they really, really do not need to be starched.
If you follow the instructions on the care label on the blouse and trousers, i.e. Premament Press cycle and remove from dryer as soon as they're dry. They will look good.
They were made to not need ironing.

I have a set of ABUs that is about 3 years old and there are pretty good (not razor sharp) creases in the pants and shirt.  I just put them in the washer and dryer.  I don't even iron them.  I've had them folded in a suitcase and they still looked great when I unpacked them. 

[rmutchler]

RABU recommendations straight from DLATS description:
The RABU is a wash and wear item. Starching and hot pressing of RABU's is prohibited. Dry cleaning, starching and hot pressing will deteriorate the fiber in the uniform and shorten the wear life

https://www.shopmyexchange.com/dlats-rabu-coat/5282006

[PHall]

RABU recommendations straight from DLATS description:
The RABU is a wash and wear item. Starching and hot pressing of RABU's is prohibited. Dry cleaning, starching and hot pressing will deteriorate the fiber in the uniform and shorten the wear life

https://www.shopmyexchange.com/dlats-rabu-coat/5282006

And yet some members think that all uniforms must be starched. Anything less would not be showing respect to the uniform.